BERLIN (AP) — After concluding that global warming almost certainly is man-made and poses a grave threat to humanity, the U.N.-sponsored expert panel on climate change is moving on to the next phase: what to do about it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, will meet next week in Berlin to chart ways in which the world can curb the greenhouse gas emissions that sci...

We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

You where doing so well until you called people shills. Name calling has got to stop and we need to stick with facts if we are ever to get past this. People are very concerned on this subject and for good reason on both sides of the debate. One side wants to clean things up and the other is concerned about how fast we are moving to accomplish this and how it will affect both the economy and how we will meet our power needs going forward. While solar energy works well the efficiency of it is very poor.

"After concluding that global warming almost certainly is man-made..."

"Almost"? I thought the 'science was settled' and now they're hedging? After likening anyone who questions their orthodoxy to holocaust deniers now they're allowing room for doubt? We should fundamentally transform the global economy because they're 'almost certain'?

And if you read the scientific reports, as opposed to their very politicized summary, you'll learn that it takes a lot of massaging to get from their reported results to "almost certainly".

"Almost"? I thought the 'science was settled' and now they're hedging? After likening anyone who questions their orthodoxy to holocaust deniers now they're allowing room for doubt? We should fundamentally transform the global economy because they're 'almost certain'?

And if you read the scientific reports, as opposed to their very politicized summary, you'll learn that it takes a lot of massaging to get from their reported results to "almost certainly".

Oh, and be sure to let us know when those scientific whizzes at East Anglia find the data set their conclusions are based on. Mighty sloppy of them to have lost the raw data....

Yes, I had just copied that to express my OUTRAGE that these PERVERTED DENIERS would question the settled science consensus after the debate is closed! Not another PENNY for the U.N.....wait, that's a good idea ANYWAY!

consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

You where doing so well until you called people shills. Name calling has got to stop and we need to stick with facts if we are ever to get past this. People are very concerned on this subject and for good reason on both sides of the debate. One side wants to clean things up and the other is concerned about how fast we are moving to accomplish this and how it will affect both the economy and how we will meet our power needs going forward. While solar energy works well the efficiency of it is very poor.

Your point about my use of shills is unnecessarily provocative and it does not apply to everyone one on this serious subject. There are too many on these posts who do argue industry positions in an unthinking way. Both sides of the debate do need to try to understand science and economy and be willing to listen to nonstandard perspectives if we are to make meaningful progress. There are a lot of things that never get mentioned in the Post or on these boards that need to be part of the planning process and unthinking noise does not help.

Good bye affordable energy use. The Progressive Socialists are coming to control even more of your life. This just more garbage from the lying control freaks who want to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

all American wrote:Good bye affordable energy use. The Progressive Socialists are coming to control even more of your life. This just more garbage from the lying control freaks who want to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

You just want your brand of lying control freaks to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

dritner wrote: While solar energy works well the efficiency of it is very poor.

You think solar is not efficient. Let me note that efficiency is related to the total system design. I know someone in Colorado Springs who uses only solar for heat even though they are required to have a backup system. I have a solar heating system that was installed in the 80s. It reduces my heating costs 20-30%. It is an air system that stores heat using rock as thermal mass in an insulated box so it works at night and on cloudy days. Other systems used water which has a much better specific heat but requires additional pumps and fluid.

House construction is important. If good insulation and windows are installed initially then significant saving can be had over the life time of the house. The orientation of the house with respect to the sun is important so all the developments with cutsie curvy streets with cookie cutter houses placed along them are not easy to use for solar. Shading placement is important for cooling. My parents and grandparents have been in Colorado for over a hundred years and have never needed air conditioning.

Houses designed to suck energy suck energy.Currently PV panels have only about 15% efficiency. There are 40% efficient systems in the lab and I expect to see 60% by the end of the decade. Prices are dropping rapidly. One these relatively inefficient PV systems on my parents’ house it is possible to get over 100% of the needed electricity.

Again system efficiency should be a part of the discussion. Houses with DC wiring for all the solid state devices and DC microgrids should be part of the discussion about long-term energy system design.

consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

You where doing so well until you called people shills. Name calling has got to stop and we need to stick with facts if we are ever to get past this. People are very concerned on this subject and for good reason on both sides of the debate. One side wants to clean things up and the other is concerned about how fast we are moving to accomplish this and how it will affect both the economy and how we will meet our power needs going forward. While solar energy works well the efficiency of it is very poor.

consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

You simply do not know what you are talking about. I have been in the building industry for over thirty years. Every evolution of product has been about energy or the environment. The push for more energy efficient homes and building systems has been driven by the consumer. There are people that can afford solar, even though most of the solar systems will not pay for themselves. God bless them if they can afford it. People like you talk out both sides of your mouth. Next thing you will be complaining about is the greedy builders not providing affordable housing, even though the requirements that you would like to impose make it unaffordable. Liberals just don't get it.

consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

I like the idea of choice. Let the market decide. I dont want government telling me what is good for me or my family. I will decide what is best for my home. Electricity went up so I converted to burning a lot of wood to heat my home. I am considering some level of solar once they offer something that is more reliable. Most of the folks that I talk to with solar are having a lot of problems with it but it seems to be getting better. I dont want any subsidy going to anyone or any business for any reason. It is not the tax payers responsibility to fund yours or my ideas or anything that we want developed. This government needs to focus like a lazer on getting this debt under control and that means big time cuts in spending and doing some things that bring back good paying jobs.

Global warming is most certainly man-made. But not in the way we are being told of man make global warming.

The models that show global warming comes from data man inputs. The computer gives a model based on that data. Past e-mail have shown that the data inputted was flawed data. Data based on an outcome. This is why global warming is a hoax.

During one of the Northeast winter storms, the metrologies on the weather channel admitted it was to early to determine just where the center of the winter storms was going to go. They were going to have to wait for later models before they could make an accurate prediction. Later weather data in order to create a model for the purpose of an accurate prediction.

Yet we are told the global warming models are the ONLY models of pending doom and gloom. The end justifies the means.

all American wrote:Good bye affordable energy use. The Progressive Socialists are coming to control even more of your life. This just more garbage from the lying control freaks who want to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

You just want your brand of lying control freaks to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

Bull!! Take a look at the NDAA, and the ACA, and the thousands of new regulations that are new to us but are locking business doors across this country.

Infringing women's reproductive rights?Who is wanting to infringe on women's reproductive rights? As a conservative I dont want to infringe on any womans right to reproduce. I just dont want her killing her kid during the final days of pregnancy. She has a lot of options and she should use them.

Banning gay marriage?Nothing new here. Gay marriage has been banned for centuries in most cultures across the globe. Those who didnt ban it didnt last long for some reason.

Imprisoning citizens for using MJ?Agreed. You should have the right to eat, drink, or smoke anything you want.

Do go on about who the control freaks are.

Control freaks are those who want to tell you what light bulbs you use, how much coke you put in your cup, what kind of chairs you sit on, what you feed your kids, what kind of car you drive, how you heat your home, how you defend your family, what kind of health care coverage you have, and how you manage your business from the parking lot to the exit doors and from cradle to grave. Those are the control freaks.

swatson839 wrote:I like the idea of choice. Let the market decide. I dont want government telling me what is good for me or my family. I will decide what is best for my home. Electricity went up so I converted to burning a lot of wood to heat my home. I am considering some level of solar once they offer something that is more reliable. Most of the folks that I talk to with solar are having a lot of problems with it but it seems to be getting better. I dont want any subsidy going to anyone or any business for any reason. It is not the tax payers responsibility to fund yours or my ideas or anything that we want developed. This government needs to focus like a lazer on getting this debt under control and that means big time cuts in spending and doing some things that bring back good paying jobs.

A couple of problems with markets are long term perspective and concern about the welfare of people.

In the example of the house system above there is a 5-20 year payback time with a higher initial cost. The buyer and environment are better off in the long run. Car manufactures complained about the cost of reducing pollution but I almost died when I went to LA one time. The cost to individuals with respiratory, cardiovascular problems or cancer was much greater that the added cost of pollution regulation.

There is a shared cost when solar is put on homes but this is building a new energy grid. Because it is more of a coop system the utility gets less revenue and the home owner pays less and the environment gains. When the billion dollar coal plant was built in Pueblo you are paying for that generating capacity more than the amount you might contribute to home solar. You are paying the bankers and big time investors interest on that billion dollars as well as the initial capital cost. You are also going to be paying fuel and maintenance costs as well as transmission costs for that plant for another 30-40 years. Even though this plant removes a lot of the nasties from the air they go somewhere so that problem like the river contamination may still occur.

The solar regulations give you a choice between paying the corporation and investors or saving money.

China and a number of other countries are subsidizing renewables because they are a coming major global market. If we import this technology our capital will continue to flow out and jobs will follow the capital. If we develop here then we can export with capital flowing in along with jobs.

swatson: Infringing women's reproductive rights?Who is wanting to infringe on women's reproductive rights? As a conservative I dont want to infringe on any womans right to reproduce. I just dont want her killing her kid during the final days of pregnancy. She has a lot of options and she should use them.

Typical Authoritarian response. You know what's best for addled women and want the state to regulate them.

swatson: Banning gay marriage?Nothing new here. Gay marriage has been banned for centuries in most cultures across the globe. Those who didnt ban it didnt last long for some reason.

Correct. There is nothing new about Authoritarians. They are morally superior and have a duty to restrict the rights of a group of citizens because we know what's best for society.

swatson :Imprisoning citizens for using MJ?Agreed. You should have the right to eat, drink, or smoke anything you want.

2 out of three, good for you! You're slightly less of an Authoritarian-control-freak than "all American".

Last edited by Les F on April 5th, 2014, 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

consilience2 wrote:China and a number of other countries are subsidizing renewables because they are a coming major global market. If we import this technology our capital will continue to flow out and jobs will follow the capital. If we develop here then we can export with capital flowing in along with jobs.

To the extent that they're a "coming" market (and it barely is, really) is mostly only because consumers can sucker their neighbors into paying for much of their purchase via taxpayer subsidies.

Regarding "If we import this technology"... Fine, let's not import it. Let's be smart and not prematurely force products on the US before they're actually cheaper/better/viable.

Being smart would be investing in some RESEARCH, but not subsidizing actual PRODUCTS until they're truly cheaper/better/viable. Once it's actually cheaper/better/viable, US consumers will automatically start buying it, because it's actually cheaper/better/viable.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

The global warming hysteria is just propaganda meant to cause hysteria and panic. It's not a good idea to try to fool mother nature. When Co2 levels rise, that means that there will be more plant growth. More plant growth is good. Plants provide the oxygen that we need and keeps our air and water clean. Algae and molds can be problematic, but there are environmentally safe methods to control that. The worse industrial polluters should be weeded out, though. Anyone who wants to dismantle the EPA and OSHA should be viewed at with skepticism. I saw a picture in another article that showed a coal miner covered in coal from the mine. He was only 33 years old. He looks about 60 years old. He'll be lucky if he lives to 50. His lungs are probably already irreparably damaged.

Last edited by Terri on April 5th, 2014, 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Assumptions makes an A out of you more than it does me. I am a Colorado native. I vote.